Purposeful Confusion?

Purposeful Confusion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 2:25:01 AM)
I don't have much on this, but I caught just a few minutes of the congressional hearings, yesterday. Something really stuck in my craw: Two of the witnesses who bothered to show up answered all questions put to them with: "On advise of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 5th Amendment, Constitutional privilege ." Since when did anything in the Bill of Rights become a "privilege"? The BoR is a partial enumeration of our ... audience, say it with me: ... RIGHTS! Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo stick! It's called the fucking Bill of RIGHTS. Anyway, it occurs to me, after a recent post where I discussed the power of media to influence societal behavior: could this be an attempt to weaken our rights (which are God-given or, at least inherent to human beings, according to the U.N.) and relegate them to the realm of privileges (bestowed upon us by the largesse of the ruling class)? Michael

BamaD -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 2:47:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't have much on this, but I caught just a few minutes of the congressional hearings, yesterday. Something really stuck in my craw: Two of the witnesses who bothered to show up answered all questions put to them with: "On advise of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer and assert my 5th Amendment, Constitutional privilege ." Since when did anything in the Bill of Rights become a "privilege"? The BoR is a partial enumeration of our ... audience, say it with me: ... RIGHTS! Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo stick! It's called the fucking Bill of RIGHTS. Anyway, it occurs to me, after a recent post where I discussed the power of media to influence societal behavior: could this be an attempt to weaken our rights (which are God-given or, at least inherent to human beings, according to the U.N.) and relegate them to the realm of privileges (bestowed upon us by the largesse of the ruling class)? Michael I have had people on here state that rights and privilages are the same thing. I had another person state that freedom flows from regulation.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 3:33:01 AM)
You want to stop watching that mince it will rot your head. Tis why I only watch the road runner and ancient aliens. Ah, the 5th. The right not to incriminate ones villainy.

JVoV -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 3:51:51 AM)
Seems like just standard legal jargon. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/your-fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

MrRodgers -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 8:20:20 AM)
Yes, it could be Michael but they still have a long way to go because the 5TH is invoked more by politicians, their hirelings and the real criminal scoundrels.

MrRodgers -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 8:22:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Seems like just standard legal jargon. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/your-fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html Works as intended.

mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 8:23:44 AM)
quote: I have had people on here state that rights and privilages are the same thing. No you haven't. privileges; perhaps. And indeed your lack of knowledge of the English language would cause you to blow a fucking headpipe like all the other imbeciles. A very common sense (and it is in dictionaries) is: A SPECIAL RIGHT.

Termyn8or -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 8:33:25 AM)
Know what ? I am getting to the point where I think politicians should not have Constitutional rights. They store every one of our emails and (supposedly) destroy theirs, they decide what is secret ? Fuck all that. It is damn obvious they are hiding their skullduggery while trying to weed out anyone with the balls to call them out on it. Fukum. In fact I am getting to the point where I will say any goddamn thing I pleas on the internet and Unesnet because if they come for me it is suicide by cop. This is not my country. I have no country. And when I hear these fucking liberals it is looking like these are not even my people. I would fight for your rigts, if you actually wanted them. But liberals fucking don't, at least not for everyone. And the republicans are even worse as hard as that is to believe. And there is no getting rid of them. I took a course in Russian just once because they required at least one foreign language. I wish I would have stuck with it. They get better and we get worse. And I have been told that I could teach English, while many of them know basic English some would like to be more fluent in it. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 8:41:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: I have had people on here state that rights and privilages are the same thing. No you haven't. privileges; perhaps. And indeed your lack of knowledge of the English language would cause you to blow a fucking headpipe like all the other imbeciles. A very common sense (and it is in dictionaries) is: A SPECIAL RIGHT. So you have explored every thread on here and found that none of the ones he even READ, let alone participated in did not have someone who claimed that, and maybe in not those words ? We see who the nutsucker really is. Piss off some more people with your fucking bullshit and we might just get together and buy the place for the simple reason of getting rid of you. No he hasn't, how the fuck could you ever know that ? And if you are talking about spelling, remember the other day boy ? Someone calls you on your spelling or typos it is bad, but if you do it it is good ? I'll meet you ate the intersection of Walk and Don't Walk and when it say Don't walk, walk. Fucking idiocy is all you add here. I think I saw a meaningful post from you last month. When do you get your period again bitch ? T^T

mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 9:35:43 AM)
http://www.collarchat.com/searchpro.asp?phrase=privilages&author=&forumid=ALL&topicreply=both&message=body&timeframe=%3E&timefilter=0&language=single&top=300&criteria=AND&minRank=0&sortMethod=d&submitbutton=+OK+ there is every occurance of the word. demonstrate the claim, and then what it means. sort of like saying authentic authentic isnt it? It is clear you are the nutsucker here.

Termyn8or -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 9:54:20 AM)
That does not include every thread a person has read. And you have been known to misspell words so go fuck yourself. T^T

mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 10:32:23 AM)
You first, since you are totally and irrevokably fucked anyway, imbecile.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 10:50:42 AM)
I seem to recall a few debates regarding rights vs privileges - so, I'm relatively certain that it has been stated, if not implied that rights and privileges are the same (and argued that they weren't.) I recall this, specifically, because at one time I considered them the same. After reading the points of views of others over the years, I came to the understanding that in regards to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the word privilege is not a word I'd use to replace "rights." Whether it was used purposefully, to whittle away at our Constitutional Rights and weaken them, I doubt. At least, in context to the court case. Whether the legal wording was changed (or not) to do so, that I would consider a possible and likely scenario. I don't know if the wording was purposefully changed, or if it was simply a verbose way of speaking encouraged by council to 'sound pretty.' I genuinely have no idea. I mean, all they need to say is "I plead the 5th." All the rest of the verbiage is simply sound bites, as I understand it.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 10:58:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance Whether it was used purposefully, to whittle away at our Constitutional Rights and weaken them, I doubt. At least, in context to the court case. Whether the legal wording was changed (or not) to do so, that I would consider a possible and likely scenario. I don't know if the wording was purposefully changed, or if it was simply a verbose way of speaking encouraged by council to 'sound pretty.' I genuinely have no idea. I would tend to agree with you except two different witnesses who were represented (I believe) by two different lawyers used the same word. I have no issue with the "flowery" words framing the assertion, because one has to be careful about appearing too obstinate. I will re-iterate (as I think you also agreed): there's a difference between "rights" and "privileges" (especially legally). Quick example? If I want to gather with a bunch of people in a county park to hold a Black Lives Matter demonstration, the "powers-that-be" would have to come up with a good reason to deny the permit because free speech is our right. If I wanted a permit to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, the onus would be on me to show why I should be allowed because I have no right to perform "dare devil stunts". Michael

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 11:12:54 AM)
quote: DaddySatyr posted: "...I would tend to agree with you except two different witnesses who were represented (I believe) by two different lawyers used the same word. " You bring up a good point. I wonder if the verbiage was written by private PR individuals and agreed upon by both lawyers? Regardless of whether it was a deliberate change of wording intended to undermine our Constitutional Rights, or an unfortunate choice of wording; it could very well set a precedent and foothold for the very thing your post addresses.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 11:50:16 AM)
quote: If I want to gather with a bunch of people in a county park to hold a Black Lives Matter demonstration, the "powers-that-be" would have to come up with a good reason to deny the permit because free speech is our right. Technically no, it the " right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" they would be interfering with. As for the question in your OP, no I don't think it is intended to diminish your 5th rights. Could it be that because Congress isn't a court it isn't technically covered by the 5th?

BamaD -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 1:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I seem to recall a few debates regarding rights vs privileges - so, I'm relatively certain that it has been stated, if not implied that rights and privileges are the same (and argued that they weren't.) I recall this, specifically, because at one time I considered them the same. After reading the points of views of others over the years, I came to the understanding that in regards to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the word privilege is not a word I'd use to replace "rights." Whether it was used purposefully, to whittle away at our Constitutional Rights and weaken them, I doubt. At least, in context to the court case. Whether the legal wording was changed (or not) to do so, that I would consider a possible and likely scenario. I don't know if the wording was purposefully changed, or if it was simply a verbose way of speaking encouraged by council to 'sound pretty.' I genuinely have no idea. I mean, all they need to say is "I plead the 5th." All the rest of the verbiage is simply sound bites, as I understand it. Yes it has been stated on here that rights = privilages = rights . I agree with you that this is false, but it is a mindset to attack rights. If trial by jury is no more inshrined that driving a car then repealing that right while a big step it is not attack basic tenants of society. I don't see the statement that started the thread as a deliberate attempt to undermine the status of rights, I see it as a sign of the mind set of the people who did this. They actually believe that we don't have rights protected by the Constitution but privilages granted by it. Bill Clinton actually stated that rights were granted by the government showing that he considered our rights to be privilages.

mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 1:29:21 PM)
cmon, privileges are statutory rights. There is no vast liberal conspiracy to throw nutsuckers off cliffs with words, you have already proven you nutsuckers don't know any words. Just fucking learn English.

JVoV -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 3:19:23 PM)
FR Do you not feel privileged being an American with such Constitutional rights? When you're sitting in front of Congress with a shit-eating grin , knowing they can't make you say anything to incriminate yourself, you're damn right it's a privilege.

BamaD -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 3:27:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV FR Do you not feel privileged being an American with such Constitutional rights? When you're sitting in front of Congress with a shit-eating grin , knowing they can't make you say anything to incriminate yourself, you're damn right it's a privilege. If it was a privilage they could just revoke it. They have that security because it is a right.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625